David Wall wrote:
[.. using LOs ..]
> And yes, you do need to wrap this in a transaction, but that should be
> standard operating procedure for anything but toy applications in my opinion
> since who wants to deal with the troubles of out of sync data.
And if you happen to be grabbing all the data you need in one SELECT,
and the transaction is readonly.. why would you not want to use autocommit?
We had exactly this case in our (distinctly non-toy) application here,
and it was a PITA to work around when we were using LOs. We use bytea
now, mostly because of this lack of transparency when using LOs -- with
a LO, the data isn't really part of the table, and it bites you in all
sorts of strange ways if you try to treat it as if it was "just another
field".
-O
